| ▲ | throwaway199956 12 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
But why didn't Supreme Court find the first ammendment arguments compelling? As per first ammendment it is legal and protected to print/distribute/disseminate even enemy propaganda in the USA. Even at the height of cold war for example Soviet Publication s were legal to publish, print and distribute in the USA. What changed now? Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone that their speech is not allowed. Looks like a major erosion of first amendment protections. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | int0x29 12 hours ago | parent | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
People have rights to speak within reason. Governments don't. The Chinese government shaping content is not protected. The law notably does not ban individual content. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | zacharyz 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The justices seem to have argued that eliminating a platform for speech does not inhibit your ability to voice that speech on another platform, so is not a violation of the first amendment. I think this is an important outcome and really goes against what many so called "free speech absolutists" would argue. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ruilov 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
they found some of the arguments compelling and acknowledged that the law may burden free speech. But they also found that the law is not about speech, it's about corporate ownership. In these cases the court will often (not always) defer to congress / the state. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | ls612 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Individuals can bring Pravda into the USA that is protected speech. But Congress could ban Pravda from doing business in the US same as it can ban or sanction any other foreign business. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | slowmovintarget 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Because the law bans the operation of software by a foreign adversary. It does not ban speech. Legal precedent holds that source code (the expressive part of software) is speech, but that executing software (the functional part) is not speech. Even when the operation conveys speech, the ban is on the functional operation of the software, so the First Amendment doesn't apply. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | psunavy03 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
What Sotomayor said is irrelevant; she's one of nine Justices. What is in the opinion is what is controlling. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | parineum 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
> Even a judge, Sotomayer said during this case that yes, the Government can say to someone that their speech is not allowed. > Looks like a major erosion of first amendment protections. It's not an erosion because it was already true and has been true for centuries. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||